Propaganda takes many forms. One in a sea of misandric sexism is the way in which we are being told, by feminist broadcasters and much of the Press all of which is feminist, that women’s sport is the same as men’s.
By Dominic Lawson: I realise that to oppose this recently created conventional wisdom is to risk obloquy and even disgrace, as the tennis commentator and many-time Wimbledon champion John McEnroe has recently discovered. As a man of no sporting pedigree or distinction whatsoever, I am much more open to ridicule in making such a judgment.
But still, I have to say it: in sports such as cricket, football and rugby, the attention now being lavished by television companies on the women’s game owes everything to the (understandable) desire to attract female viewers and very little to objective assessment of sporting quality and excitement.
The space given to the England women’s cricket World Cup victory eight days ago was extraordinary in this respect. Not only were there acres of coverage in the sports pages, but a Times leader, no less, described it as ‘one of the best games of recent times’. It concluded by suggesting that our women’s triumph was of no less sporting significance than if it had been achieved by the English men in the ICC Cricket World Cup that billions watch across the globe.Measure
If one’s interest in sport is purely parochial or nationalistic, then the fact that it was an English team that won this competition is all that counts.
But the true measure of sporting significance has nothing to do with the colour of the winners’ passports. Usain Bolt, Muhammad Ali, Pele; these figures define what we — whatever our nationality — mean by sporting greatness. The reason is that they synthesised power and speed in a way which left spectators almost unable to believe their eyes.